You may want to increment ((Archive basics)) to |counter= 13 as User talk:DePiep/Archive 12 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

(Another weird ANI)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: How should I find another editor to work with on Template:Chem molar mass/sandbox while DePiep is blocked? There's something wrong with the template pipeline that I set up, and I have no idea what. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 00:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask for help at WP:VPT — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have just made a new section there about it. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 20:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• [1]

Really and sincerely, MSGJ, could you clarify (with diffs preferably) what actually was my "disruptive editing"? Rereading this ANI tread I only read personal impressions, not a factual trespassing. OP Dingley really wrote "I'm sick of this sort of attitude from them." — how could I argue with this? (mind us, this was in their OP ANI complaint) Actually, as I wrote already then, the OP (accusor) failed WP:BRD themselves. So what exactly was my bad behaviour? (Ofcourse, "You were blocked before so you deserve a block" is not sound). As the threads shows, *I* (DePiep) was the one who followed WP:BRD. So please clarify you "disruptive editing" conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am on holiday at the moment and not spending much time on Wikipedia. If you still want me to answer any questions, I should be available sometime next week — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DePiep (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

(ANI thread) I ask for unblocking me. However. I do not and cannot honestly claim to "I understand my error, and I have learned so I will not do so again" (as the prescribed Unblock request requires). Because such "error" was not explained or did not even exist. Instead, I explicitly ask unblocking because the complete ANI thread is, let me say, immature. (In detail: I (!) did follow WP:BRD, while the ANI-OP did not). On top of this, the argument logic reads "Your were blocked before, so I block you". DePiep (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There are no grounds here to consider lifting your block. Please see WP:GAB to understand how to craft an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• To me, this is an example of an ANI thread going wild. Which is typical for ANI. "You are blocked because you were blocked before". -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"That is: I started the BRD talk, Andy started a BF talk on my talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)"

Is it possible to override the phase field automatically inserted from ((Infobox element/symbol-to-phase)) in the superheavy element infoboxes? Currently for example ((Infobox oganesson)) reads "unknown phase (predicted)" under "Phase at STP", which is rather odd: it should really read "solid (predicted)", but only for the infobox (so periodic tables should still give it the unknown phase colour). Double sharp (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: infobox reads ((Infobox element/symbol-to-phase)) by default, and |phase=any text overwrites this value. |phase comment= nicely can have (predicted) and a reference. This overwriting currently happens only in infobox Fr(!) and Z=100 - 118 (Fm-Og); I did not change these infoboxes. Z>=119: phase not shown at the moment. -DePiep (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! As for Fr (and At, really): I am a bit sceptical of those figures and will look around for where they come from, since macroscopic samples of these elements have not been made. Probably they will become "unknown phase" when I find out. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You may want to edit (update) ((Infobox element/symbol-to-phase)) for francium. -DePiep (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep, I thought you had agreed to stop altering the capitalization of "middle ages" back in January, but you seem to have continued doing so, and continued mislabeling it as a "typo" (and labeling your revert as a "minor" edit) in March. Given how you behaved in the January discussion (going out of your way to take offence when I complimented you, and then twice posting "It's resolved -- let's stop talking about it") before going back and doing the same thing two months later with an almost identical edit summary, this seems somewhat tendentious: I would encourage you not to do so again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, a very disappointing experience that must be. Maybe it is not all that bad. At the moment I don't have time to respond extensively and carefully, so I will reply later on. -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Hijiri88: you write going out of your way to take offence when I complimented you. To be clear, do you mean to say that, back in January, I deliberately misunderstood your wording "useful-ass edit summaries"? (I note that later in that thread, its meaning was clarified and so I struck my objection).

Then if it was a compliment re my editsummaries, why do you now write doing the same thing two months later with an almost identical edit summary, this seems somewhat tendentious -- if it was a compliment back then, why do you judge it to be the opposite as a blame while being 'almost identical'?

As for the content of that discussion (capitalising of "middle ages/Middle Ages"), what would you describe is the final conclusion of that MOS-thread? To me it is not clear. -DePiep (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely seemed to be the case. Your somewhat troll-ish comments elsewhere in the discussion back this up.

Yeah, because you would not have an identical edit summary unless you went back and copied the wording you had used earlier, before we had agreed that "middle ages" was acceptable. That means you knew that the edit you were making was disruptive, and your edit summary is evidence of that. That your edit summaries are often useful in establishing your intentions is a good thing, but when your intentions are disruptive ... well, I guess it's still useful when your edit summaries make that clear.

The final conclusion was "don't change it", with perhaps a touch of "capitalization is usually only for the European Middle Ages".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried a different method of expressing the uncertainty at Template:Chem molar mass/testcases. There are doing to be some difficulties, but so far, it seems like it will be much easier than what we were trying before. What do you think? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 18:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Nth User: I am active in RL, so have little time to dive into this. Also, I have indicated that without using Lua these calsulations are extremely difficult to program and test. Meanwhile, many months later it is a pity that we did not implement our first, already improved version. Now this is working into Perfect version while skipping the Good. Finally: on Template_talk:Chem_molar_mass I have added the reference Possolo (2018). It has a defining and authoritative description on how to calculate. It also has examples (to test; I did add them to the testpages). I am still waiting for your statement that says: "Yes, we will go by Possolo (2018)". I cannot check the other uncertainty calculations you introduce, and I don't see why we would use them. -DePiep (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; I'll change it back. Also, while I thought that I had already stated it, I am calculating the uncertainty using the method that Possolo (2018) uses and planning to continue using that method. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 16:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, could not find it right away. (and I lost the location of the Possolo test excamples). -DePiep (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do the testcases look now that I restored an earlier version of Template:Chem molar mass/format/sandbox? I notice that the result in the right column for fluoride at Template:Chem_molar_mass/testcases#Test_for_when_enthalpy_of_formation_makes_a_difference conflict with the calculations that I made at Template_talk:Chem_molar_mass#Enthalpy_of_formation, but I can't figure out why, as enthalpy of formation is included in the mass calculations. The only other potential problem that I could find is that for carbon dioxide and ozone, the sandbox version gives molar masses that are a little higher than the established version, although this is because I altered the molar mass of oxygen because it didn't fall inside the standard range. (I did the same for thallium.) Can you find any other potential issues? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 23:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re: NO I WON'T SPEND ANY MORE TIME ON THIS. Is what I said. -DePiep (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clear out your recently-created Category:GHS errors? The pages in this category are also transcluding general errors and as the guy who patrols and fixes general errors, I can't immediately figure out what to do. So you might just make these populate the category without transcluding ((error)). Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are an error. True, someone should/could clear that out (in the template maybe?), but we cannot ingore the error in there. DePiep (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm asking for then is either (1) fix these for me or (2) explain what the errors are and how to fix them. You've put them in the top-priority work queue, so they should be fixed now. wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) re User:Wbm1058 I don't understand. These are pages with an error, so they are categorised. What's the issue? -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that I can't find the damn errors! If I can't find them then I can't fix them! wbm1058 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then click & read just only once in that category header. Anyway, stop cursing on my talkpage instead of asking me a question. -DePiep (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask you a question. Oh, I see. I need to go to the extra trouble to edit and then Show preview to see the errors. Thanks for telling me that. wbm1058 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, didn't you write [I'm wbm1058,] the guy who patrols and fixes general errors and [I'm wbm1058,] fix these for me? I don't understand your "question" (to ask it nicely). What wiki-commandor-in-chief are you? Of course, I won't fix these for me [you], nor will I explain more since you did not (even try to) grasp the basic documentation. -DePiep (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC) -- For the record: [2], [3], [4][reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

Hi DePiep, You may wish to strike 3. Go fuck yourself. from the ANI thread. Considering the atmosphere of that thread, and that your other comments provide valuable insight, it wouldn't make sense for you to be admonished for the same thing you are commenting on. Even though everyone who has participated in that thread agrees that IM's actions were inappropriate, this comment crosses the same line. Just keep this in mind. ComplexRational (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]